당초 조사시 누락된 자료를 추후 과세하는 것은 신의성실의 원칙에 위배되지 않으며 세무조사권의 남용에 해당하지도 않음[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-70717 ( April 27, 2018)
Cho High-2016-S-095 (Law No. 17, 2017)
It does not violate the principle of good faith to impose subsequent taxation on data omitted at the time of initial investigation and does not constitute abuse of the right to tax investigation.
(1) The notice of credit card sales omitted from taxation at the time of initial investigation does not constitute abuse of the right to tax investigation and double taxation, but also violates the principle of good faith and the principle of basis taxation, and the omission of sales through the borrowed account is a "aggressive act making it impossible or significantly difficult to impose and collect taxes" and the exclusion period of imposition for ten years should be applied.
Articles 16 (Ground Taxation) and 81-4 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes
2018Nu46096 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
KimA
BB Director of the Tax Office
October 5, 2018
November 23, 2018
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Purport of claim
It is as stated in the separate sheet of claim.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant around 201*.* on the date of the imposition of value-added tax *.* on the date of the imposition of value-added tax * on the date of 20*. value-added tax * on the date of 20* on the date of payment * 00,000,00 on the date of 20* on the date of 20** 00,000 on the date of 20* 200,000 on the date of 10,000 on the date of 10,000,000 on the date of 10,000 on the date of 20,000, * on the imposition of value-added tax for the under-reported * on the date of 200,000, * on the under-reported 200, 200, 2000, * on the under-reported return * on the date of 20.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reason for this judgment is the same as the reason for the judgment of the first instance, except that the part from the last 24 pages to the 25 pages 1 is "5. Other cases similar to subparagraphs 1 through 4 and prescribed by Presidential Decree", and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the imposition of the first imposition of the second imposition of 20* 1, 2, 200* 1, 200* The imposition of the second imposition of the first imposition of the second imposition of the tax was imposed within the exclusion period of imposition, and each imposition of the unfair under-reported additional tax is also legitimate, so the plaintiff's claim to the effect that it is opposed to the imposition of the second imposition of the tax shall be dismissed as it has